Secular/Religious Buddhism, which are we?

[Ryker]

So I was thinking about this for awhile, I saw a post on reddit a few days back that asked about secular Buddhism and why there seems to be hate for it, and a lot of Buddhists who happen to follow the traditional, religious flavor of Buddhism all said secular Buddhism isn't correct/right, a number of things, as to why they believe this.

I noticed I haven't heard of any religious talk or supernatural talk if u will, about 6 realms, hungry ghosts, reincarnation after death, etc here, more so more just with saying we don't practice it/talk about it, if I understood correctly.

I'm still going thru everything and working to understand it deeply before moving into the next lessons so maybe I am missing something. [emoji3526]

It got me thinking about us, this Sangha and it's teachings, this mostly goes out to our founder and other priests here at Treeleaf but I would love to hear other's takes on the matter.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking this, but isn't the main part of any Buddhist practice is to want to remove suffering from the world? I mean, that's what I want, and if I can help then I feel I'm doing something correct with my life. [emoji28]

Sorry for running long again, I tried rewording this several times... Apologies as well for making posts like these if it's a bother.

Gasshō, Ryker
Sat today





Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Bion]

Secular/Religious Buddhism, which are we?

Jundo always says Nishijima Roshi wavered between defining zen as religion or philosophy, though his definition of religion was ample, including any belief system that leads us to act and defines our place in the world.

If we look at the way Soto Zen has been practiced, from now all the way back to master Dōgen’s time, or China before him, it’s as religious as any other religion you can name.. Of course we have more scientific knowledge nowadays and more understanding of the world, to be able to step away from some superstitions and magical aspects of what Soto Zen has been. Jundo always talks about the woo woo of Zen, and we even stay away in this sangha from the magic of dharanis and incantations. But we hold ceremonies, light incense, chant, dedicate our efforts to all beings, we religiously practice zazen, we sew robes and take vows. Ultimately, anyone can find whatever they choose in this practice.

Sorry for running long

Gassho
Sat and lah

[Ryker]

Jundo always says Nishijima Roshi wavered between defining zen as religion or philosophy...

...we hold ceremonies, light incense, chant, dedicate our efforts to all beings, we religiously practice zazen, we sew robes and take vows. Ultimately, anyone can find whatever they choose in this practice.

Sorry for running long

Gassho
Sat and lah

Thank you for explaining a bit more although I have questions on these specific things, so on holding ceremonies, lighting incense, and so forth (didn't know we chanted );

Is there a mysticism belief in these things? Like an actual belief in magic like in traditional Buddhism (not exactly zen but I heard even Sōtō zen has some mysticism in it?)

Gasshō, Ryker
Sat today

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Bion]

Secular/Religious Buddhism, which are we?

Thank you for explaining a bit more although I have questions on these specific things, so on holding ceremonies, lighting incense, and so forth (didn't know we chanted );

Is there a mysticism belief in these things? Like an actual belief in magic like in traditional Buddhism (not exactly zen but I heard even Sōtō zen has some mysticism in it?)

Gasshō, Ryker
Sat today

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

If you have a look at any of our zazenkai, we chant the Heart Sutra, Sandokai, 4 vows, Verse of Atonement, Dedication of merit, on special occasions we recite the Buddha Names, we do the verse of the Okesa every day etc
It’s fairly easy to find standard explanations for the majority of forms and practices of our way, but I’ve found that most teachers put their own spin on certain things and some are more esoteric than others. I’d rather let Jundo write an appropriate answer for you.

gassho
sat and lah

[Ryker]

If you have a look at any of our zazenkai, we chant the Heart Sutra, Sandokai, 4 vows, Verse of Atonement, Dedication of merit, on special occasions we recite the Buddha Names, we do the verse of the Okesa every day etc
It’s fairly easy to find standard explanations for the majority of forms and practices of our way, but I’ve found that most teachers put their own spin on certain things and some are more esoteric than others. I’d rather let Jundo write an appropriate answer for you.

gassho
sat and lah

Ohh I'll certainly check those out when I got time

And yes, thank you, I hope he sees this at some point as I very much look forward to hearing from him.

Thank you Bion for ur time today, have a wonderful day.

Gasshō, Ryker

Sat/Lah

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Bion]

Ohh I'll certainly check those out when I got time

And yes, thank you, I hope he sees this at some point as I very much look forward to hearing from him.

Thank you Bion for ur time today, have a wonderful day.

Gasshō, Ryker

Sat/Lah

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

My pleasure, Ryker! And no worries, Jundo will definitely see this

Have a great day, stay awesome!

gassho
sat and lah

[Rich]

Secular and religious are just labels. If you are awake and just sitting which one are you? -)

Sat/lah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ryker]

Secular and religious are just labels. If you are awake and just sitting which one are you? -)

Sat/lah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a very good question, one I will have to think on.
Thank you Rich [emoji3526]

Gasshō, Ryker
Sat/lah

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Jundo]

So I was thinking about this for awhile, I saw a post on reddit a few days back that asked about secular Buddhism and why there seems to be hate for it, and a lot of Buddhists who happen to follow the traditional, religious flavor of Buddhism all said secular Buddhism isn't correct/right, a number of things, as to why they believe this.

I noticed I haven't heard of any religious talk or supernatural talk if u will, about 6 realms, hungry ghosts, reincarnation after death, etc here, more so more just with saying we don't practice it/talk about it, if I understood correctly.

I'm still going thru everything and working to understand it deeply before moving into the next lessons so maybe I am missing something. [emoji3526]

It got me thinking about us, this Sangha and it's teachings, this mostly goes out to our founder and other priests here at Treeleaf but I would love to hear other's takes on the matter.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking this, but isn't the main part of any Buddhist practice is to want to remove suffering from the world? I mean, that's what I want, and if I can help then I feel I'm doing something correct with my life. [emoji28]

Sorry for running long again, I tried rewording this several times... Apologies as well for making posts like these if it's a bother.

Gasshō, Ryker
Sat today

Hi Ryker,

I did an interview a few years ago in which I advocated what I called, "Religious-Secular Buddhism: The Best of All Worlds."

https://secularbuddhism.org/episode-233-jundo-cohen-religious-secular-buddhism-the-best-of-all-worlds/

There, I spoke of a middle way for modern times:

We are “Religious” … believing that the world as it is, this life and all reality are somehow sacred and to be cherished, that a sense of wonder, mystery, trust and gratitude regarding “all this” is not out of place even for modern peoples. Furthermore, our practice is to see through and transcend the common surface appearances of this life and world which may delude human beings in their greed, anger and divisive thinking.

We are “Secular” … firmly rooted in ordinary society, skeptical of beliefs and traditions founded primarily in rumor, religious imagination and unquestioning faith, rejecting tenets without basis in the world as it is. Nonetheless, we believe that many traditional teachings, stories, ceremonies and practices yet have value and power, do not conflict with modern scientific and historical understanding, and thus should be preserved.

We are “Buddhist” … as we seek to uphold core teachings of Buddhist tradition, while turning away from secondary tenets arising primarily in superstition, ignorance or unsuited to modern times. In rejecting fantasy and fictions within many ancient Buddhist beliefs, the power of Buddhist teachings to free sentient beings is preserved. We also believe in our obligations to live ethically, avoiding anger, violence and excess desires in keeping with the Precepts, with social awareness directed toward the good of society and this world.

...

I believe that it is possible to maintain beliefs that, as best we can, are freed of superstition. I demand that there be some credible evidence and basis … beyond rumor, anecdote, hearsay and supposition … to rely on claims and assumptions about reality which purport to be true. More is demanded than simple blind faith in the assertions of ancient books or ancestors, even the alleged words of the Buddha himself (assuming his actual words can be known). It is time to recognize that many of the beliefs of ancient men and women, even of the Buddha himself, may have been the narrow and ill-informed views of people limited to knowledge as it existed in centuries past. Their values and assumptions may have been those of their times and cultures. For some of us, there is need to discard fictions and foolish suppositions in the light of modern evidence. For some of us, many of the changes and developments of so-called “Buddhist Modernism” are worthwhile reforms and reformulations which not only changed, but may have improved and strengthened, past Buddhist approaches in important ways.

On the other hand, we need not go to excess in rejecting all that is old and hard to fathom merely for being old and hard in ordinary thinking, and we should not make the mistake of turning Buddhism into little beyond some form of therapy or relaxation technique robbed of so many ancient treasures. Thus, I propose that we maintain the best of all possible worlds, what may be called a “Religio-Secular Buddhism,” representing one “Third Way” to bridge important issues and difficulties facing Buddhism as it comes to the West.

“Religio-Secular Buddhism” means forms of practice that maintain the option of and place for certain seemingly “religious” elements of Buddhist Practice … for example, the possibility of statues, robes, incense … but only to the extent that each speaks to and has meaning for the practitioner, is seen to have value as a symbol or poetic expression of some greater truths, and serves as a reminder or focus encompassing teachings, thus embodying a pragmatic purpose to facilitate and enhance Buddhist Practice. For example, one might keep a painting, a statue or a ceremony not on the basis that there is some mysterious mystical power or claimed supernatural magic worked in the thing or act itself, but because such stands as a symbol for, reminder and celebration of tradition and the teachings so embodied (not unlike, for example, a national flag, song, historical legend and civic ritual standing for a democratic people, society and its imparted values). We might maintain incense, chanting or bowing simply for their role in creating a psychological state of removal from worldly concerns in a certain space and time through the olfactory, auditory or other physical senses. Hard to credit beliefs may be reinterpreted in ways which give modern relevance (such as the reinterpretation, common in the Zen world, of Siddhi mystical powers as encompassing the seemingly ordinary wonders of “offering a smile, drinking water, breathing”). One might maintain an old legend or ancient hero (even while recognizing that the story may have no legitimate historical foundation) as a reminder of valid teachings and imparted truths in the symbol.

On the other hand, we can jettison other claims and beliefs as baseless. The practice of dharani and magic spells, belief in certain superhuman powers such as levitation and clairvoyance, faith in the literal truth of superhuman creatures such as Nagas and Hungry Ghosts, or very detailed views of the process of rebirth can all be left behind absent showing of some other valid role, reason or reliable proof. (For example, certain states such as those of “Hungry Ghosts” may be retained if reinterpreted and encountered for their psychological meaning, and certain views of “rebirth” can be presented which are perfectly harmonious with modern scientific understanding such as by asserting that we are each constantly “reborn” in each moment, for all phenomena are impermanent and constantly changing. Of course, we might be tempted to recognize the retention of some magical practices and unsupported beliefs purely as “expedient means” because of the comfort they provide and their “placebo-like” effect, a phenomenon has been shown to actually exist and be a recognized in medical science too. Religious stories, no matter how fantastic, do serve to offer comfort to people. Nonetheless, there is thus a certain deception involved which, I believe, should cause us to turn away from such holy lies). We might abandon or remain skeptically agnostic regarding detailed, mechanical views of post-mortem “karma” for lack of proof, yet uphold a general belief such as that “angry and violent actions tend to cause further anger and violence in the world, today and continuing long after our own lives” as a relevant and defensible ethical assertion. We might see the historical Buddha as a human being much as the rest of us (although perhaps a very gifted and special one) to the extent that there is no evidence for any special abilities on his part outside of idealized, hagiographic writings. We might also find a greater “Buddha” which represents that aspect of wholeness and harmony, beyond names and separations, which transcends dualistic categories of the desirous and divisive human mind. Such a vision of underlying wholeness, beauty and harmony does not contradict any modern understanding of the structure of reality, with many a physicist or mathematician, poet or artist claiming a sense of something much the same.

More here: https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/show...-of-All-Worlds

So, here I sometimes speak of "6 realms, hungry ghosts, reincarnation after death," but perhaps not in the most literal way but as, for example, the beautiful and ugly realms within the human heart and our behavior, and I am skeptical of overly detailed and literal suppositions of the meaning of "rebirth," and that such adaptations of beliefs more grounded in our modern understanding of the world are a better way to help the suffering beings. Recently I wrote a book in which I say that, in coming generations, we may adapt our teachings even further, using new technologies and medical discoveries, to do the same.

https://futurebuddhabook.com/

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

PS - If you would like to know more about most of the chants and ceremonies one will find around Treeleaf, including why we do not chant some things, or have adapted some rituals for modern times, please have a look here:

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?291-About-our-Treeleaf-Chants

[Tairin]

I prefer the term “life-practice” but I am really aligned with Rich on this one.


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Jundo]

Nishijima Roshi used to define "religion" very widely, as basically any personal belief or attitude about who and what we are in the universe, and our actions in response to such belief. So, by such definition, even atheism or agnosticism, Marxism or radical materialism would constitute someone's religion.

Gassho, J

stlah

[Ryker]

Hi Ryker,

I did an interview a few years ago in which I advocated what I called, "Religious-Secular Buddhism: The Best of All Worlds."

https://secularbuddhism.org/episode-233-jundo-cohen-religious-secular-buddhism-the-best-of-all-worlds/

There, I spoke of a middle way for modern times:



So, here I sometimes speak of "6 realms, hungry ghosts, reincarnation after death," but perhaps not in the most literal way but as, for example, the beautiful and ugly realms within the human heart and our behavior, and I am skeptical of overly detailed and literal suppositions of the meaning of "rebirth," and that such adaptations of beliefs more grounded in our modern understanding of the world are a better way to help the suffering beings. Recently I wrote a book in which I say that, in coming generations, we may adapt our teachings even further, using new technologies and medical discoveries, to do the same.

https://futurebuddhabook.com/

Gassho, Jundo

stlah

PS - If you would like to know more about most of the chants and ceremonies one will find around Treeleaf, including why we do not chant some things, or have adapted some rituals for modern times, please have a look here:

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/foru...reeleaf-Chants

Sorry for the late reply, Jundo.

I'll check the interview out when I wake up (just got off work and it's 1am) and the other links, thank u for taking the time to respond and let me know all of this, it helps a lot ready.

Very happy about what I have learned so far!

Gasshō, Ryker

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Ryker]

Nishijima Roshi used to define "religion" very widely, as basically any personal belief or attitude about who and what we are in the universe, and our actions in response to such belief. So, by such definition, even atheism or agnosticism, Marxism or radical materialism would constitute someone's religion.

Gassho, J

stlah

Ohh that's super interesting!
Are there any videos/books on Nishojima Roshi to learn more about them as well?

Gasshō Ryker

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[Kokuu]

Are there any videos/books on Nishojima Roshi to learn more about them as well?

There are! The main one in which he talks about his view on Buddhism as a religion is one edited (translated?) and published by Jundo called A Heart-to-Heart Chat on Buddhism with Old Master Gudo.

Personally, I don't really worry about the terms secular and religious, but Nishijima Roshi's take on practice is very interesting and something which I believe we hold true to at Treeleaf.

There is a whole archive of Nishijima Roshi material at shobogenzo.net which includes audio, video and text.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Hoseki]

So I was thinking about this for awhile, I saw a post on reddit a few days back that asked about secular Buddhism and why there seems to be hate for it, and a lot of Buddhists who happen to follow the traditional, religious flavor of Buddhism all said secular Buddhism isn't correct/right, a number of things, as to why they believe this.

I noticed I haven't heard of any religious talk or supernatural talk if u will, about 6 realms, hungry ghosts, reincarnation after death, etc here, more so more just with saying we don't practice it/talk about it, if I understood correctly.

I'm still going thru everything and working to understand it deeply before moving into the next lessons so maybe I am missing something. [emoji3526]

It got me thinking about us, this Sangha and it's teachings, this mostly goes out to our founder and other priests here at Treeleaf but I would love to hear other's takes on the matter.

Maybe I am wrong for thinking this, but isn't the main part of any Buddhist practice is to want to remove suffering from the world? I mean, that's what I want, and if I can help then I feel I'm doing something correct with my life. [emoji28]

Sorry for running long again, I tried rewording this several times... Apologies as well for making posts like these if it's a bother.

Gasshō, Ryker
Sat today





Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

Hi Ryker,


I saw that thread as well. I read a little but I decided it was best for me to not get involved. But I don't mind expressing my views here. That said, my take on the issue is that it doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, in these types of discussions people seldom take the time to define their terms. This is really important because we aren't always talking about the same thing. Or our understanding isn't as clear as we might think it is. Or what might be considered a religious practice might also be considered a cultural norm. I'm married but it wasn't a religious affair, we were married by a judge at a bed and breakfast, and yet marrage is very much a religious practice for some where I live. It's very important to some people that they get married in this or that church. But is it because they feel it's important to God or to their relationship to God or is it because it's tradition? Or maybe they don't want to anger their religious parents?

The term religion was something that people created to try and catagorize cultural phenomenon. Terms like religion or culture don't carve nature at the joints so to speak. We tend to think of our concepts as being neatly divided like peices of a puzzle or two rocks. It's very easy to tell two solid objects apart because they clear and distinct dimensions. But when we start to talk about abstract terms it much less clear. It's easy to tell two trees apart but we we start asking questions about the forest it can get a little fuzzier. For example, where does the forest begin? I think our default answer is to say "it begins at the first tree we see and it ends at the last." This would be the same as treating the forest like a single tree. But why couldn't the forest begin in the middle and radate outwards? Or why couldn't it be the third tree and move a little to the left side and then all the way to the right side? The forest is the collection of trees and each tree is essential for the forest to be what it is at any one moment. Does a forest even have a beginning? I think the answer is yes when we are talking about navigation or territory because we are interested in the demarcations of land. The relevant information in this situation would be the first and last trees we see. But if we aren't applying that kind of conceptual framework (which isn't something we do conciously) then I don't think it does. I think the forest is just the forest or just this.

So coming back to religious vs secular, I don't think the distiction matters to much. Or if it does matter it's only in certain circumstances. Just like we tend to treat our abstract concepts as neat and tidy we also treat them as if they are the things themselves rather than a way of organizing information or identifying patterns and relationships between things and actions. I'm not being terribly clear here but my point is just because one can apply a concept to a situation doesn't mean they should always do so. Concepts can obscure just as much as they can illumunate.


My appologies for the length.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah